Board of Park Commissioners

Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, October 8, 2018 3:00- 5:00 P.M. C I T Y o O P 455 N Main WICHITA City Hall 1'1 Floor Board Room Wichita, Kansas 67202 Members Present: Troy Palmer, Bill Ramsey, Alejo Cabral, Ty Tabing, Hoyt Hillman, Tori Deatherage Members Absent: Eddie Fahnestock City Staff: Troy Houtman (Director, Park & Recreation), Penny Garding (Clerk), Elizabeth Harlenske (Assistant City Attorney), Reggie Davidson, Larry Hoetmer, Troy Hendricks (Park Staff), John Philbrick, Scott Wadle (Property Management) Guest: Steve Suellentrop, Calvin Cupp, Dale Geter, Tom West, Cindy Renard, Candia smith, Nancy Knoop, David Burk, Diana Greenwood Item Descri1;1tion call to Order Troy Palmer, President, called the meeting to order at approximately 3:05 p.m. Announcements There were no Announcements. Public Comments Steven Suellentrop, 13601 W Hardtner stated they have talked about the property in the past. It has been ongoing since last we found out last November/December timeframe the survey showed that the deed to Lot 8 in College Hill Park was deeded to the City in 1927. Upon doing so a portion of the property they are under contract to purchase is encroaching on that. They just want to have that considered to exchange hands to our benefit so we can close on the house and put it on the tax roll and improve it so it would not encroach or impede any access to the park. Mr. Suellentrop provided pictures of the property. He further stated they decided nine feet would be to the stake. The lot reads as 25 feet wide and they would be asking for up to the stake indicated. That would keep a three foot buffer between access to the park and the property line. It would be the red portion on the provided survey picture. It is approximately 3,500 square feet they are looking for consideration on. In the past it was discussed between $4 and $8 per square foot, not sure how that was arrived at. After talking with developers and appraisers, an appraiser would not give him an opinion, it has no value, and it is excess land, not considered surplus land to where you can build on it. A developer said for the lots they sell it would be closer to $1.65 market value. That is the consideration 1) the lot as laid out in the survey and 2) consideration of the price. Houtman responded we discussed this once before from staff perspective. What was agreed upon was that we would sell the encroached upon property. Real Estate had been working on price and believes we had a contract at one time to sell that BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 1 of 18 encroached portion. The previous owner didn't purchase it. He inquired if Suellentrop is the new owner now. Suellentrop responded they are under contract to purchase the house, contingent on a simultaneous closing of the adjoining property. Houtman added they have been working with Real Estate to close that loop on the portion that has been encroached upon. That is what was agreed upon. Suellentrop responded it is only nine feet wide. Ramsey added it basically covers the driveway. Houtman added we wanted to make sure we sell just the encroachment and give the encroachment over the past year so you would not have to demolish... Suellentrop stated the house, the soffit actually hangs over the driveway as well. He stated what was agreed to was the nine foot. Trees and shrubbery on the park property are nearly leaning over the house. Houtman added we also discussed that whoever the new property owner is, if they want to do some type of Memorandum of Agreement regarding maintenance we would be happy to do that. Our staff would be happy to help set up some type of maintenance plan. That is wha< we talked about and agreed on last time. Suellentrop stated yes and why he was advised/asked by other members to bring it back up and have a reconsideration. Houtman asked Philbrick if he had comment on the square footage price and any other changes. Philbrick responded he has seen not what is being proposed. He added Mr. Suellentrop called him and said they were working to close and would get back to him. He has not heard back from them after several weeks. As you say, we discussed this, and you laid out what was discussed related to the encroachment. Pricing was based on what we have seen between county values and sale values in developed or redeveloped neighborhoods, which is what the Park Board approved and discussed last year. Palmer inquired what are we trying to achieve today. The encroachment you are looking for has been established, are you looking for more? Suellentrop responded the 25 foot wide area as a set out in the survey that they completed. Basically an amendment to the previous discussion from January's meeting and a motion to move forward with something of this nature so we can move forward in purchasing the property and getting it cleaned up. Harlenske stated this needs to be an agenda item, it is not a public comment item if you are going to take a vote. It needs to be put on the agenda and have complete understanding of what it is the parties want. Houtman stated there is already an agreement in place. There has already been something that we had a contract in place. Suellentrop stated they never signed a contract or anything. There was discussion and we needed to arrive at a contract. Houtman added we had all the items that were needed to be placed on to a contract that had already been agreed upon. If you want to continue the discussion, come back next month and we will put it on the agenda. Palmer stated we don't need to do it on an agenda if it is agreed upon and that is what you are trying to get to. If you are asking for additional space that is a totally different conversation. There are new board members that were not part of the original conversation and that would have to go onto an agenda item. Suellentrop stated (illegible) want an agenda item. Palmer stated if you want to talk about the additional property it will have to go on an agenda item. Houtman added regarding the vegetation, we made the agreement and had all the specifications for the part that is already on the encroachment. We do not want our neighbor to have BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 2 of 18  to go through and tear down things, we are making a huge exception to make that happen. With that there are ideas regarding vegetation we can work with you on and come up with some kind of Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement to maintain that. There are things you can do now if you want to move forward. If we are changing what was agreed upon then the board needs to discuss it. Palmer inquired of Suellentrop if you had the contract that Houtman is speaking about, you could move forward on your purchase, correct? Suellentrop responded yes, then we would need to discuss the $4-$8 per square foot. He is not sure we can come to an agreement on that price. Palmer inquired so you want to move forward on just the agreement on the property we are talking about and come back later and talk about... if you want to negotiate, don't know if that is a negotiation with Houtman, Philbrick or the Park Board. Houtman asked Philbrick if there is room for negotiation regarding the price. How did we come about that price? Philbrick responded what was approved was the encroachment in that price range. There was a different owner at the time. They had been working with her and the bank to work through it. The price given was what we found, if he has different information we can look at that. That would change the dynamics of the transaction. It would be a different transaction than what was approved. Palmer added, to keep your contract moving forward, Suellentrop responded it depends on price, we could move forward with that to close on the house. It is going to have to be an agreed upon price. Houtman added the encroachment square footage is about 800 square feet? Suellentrop responded 1,500, 10 foot wide by 150. Houtman stated that is a difference of $3,000. Palmer stated we can do one of two ways. We can draw this up like it was originally agreed upon and come back later if you want to talk about the rest of the property. Or, you could wait another month and come back to the Board and present your findings and we can go from there. Suellentrop requested to be on the agenda for November. Ramsey stated that just because it does not have value to a developer does not mean it doesn't have value to the City or Park Board. There is value there. calvin Cupp, 3919 E Elm, extended a personal invitation to all Park Board members to the River Vista Shocker Rowing Open House on October 20. The dedication will be at 4:00 p.m. 1 Approve Minutes Recommended Action: Approve, sign and file minutes of the September 11, 2018, Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting. Tabing stated there are some minor typos to share. Dale Geter, 2625 W Cornelison, stated he saw a draft of the minutes and there is reference to an audience member comment that was his, about the financial history of MacDonald Park. He had made a point that the comment had been made that MacDonald Park had lost money last year and for several years prior. He had commented the numbers they had indicated that is not correct. The minutes he saw had his correction but not the original comment. Would like that noted in the minutes. Ramsey added what he said was along those lines but that is not exactly how he said it. It has lost money in the past is how he phrased it. Goter stated you said it had lost it for several years prior. Ramsey responded that is true, but not contiguous. Ramsey stated that is correct that was stated. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 3 of 18  Cindy Renard, 1110 Royal Road, has a correction to the Special Meeting July 6. It was stated in the minutes that the question was asked if Clapp was such a beginner course why First Tee chose Mac over Clapp. It was answered that since the plans to sell and alter Clapp in 2013, which was actually 2014, were voted against, First Tee chose Mac. Both Mr. West, of the First Tee and serves on the GAC, and she feel this was misstated. She clarified, in August of 2014 the community and golfers spoke out loud and clear that they did not want a QuikTrip and all that comes with it inside their park. Park Board made a unanimous decision to keep LW Clapp intact. This decision had nothing to do with the First Tee's location decision. First Tee was not chartered until January 2015. In discussions with the City during mid-2016 Mr. West saw both Mac and Clapp as suitable locations for the First Tee program. She would like clarification for that because a lot of these board members were not on the board back in 2014 and just wanted to set the record straight. Motion by Hillman, second by Deatherage, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to approve as corrected, sign and file the minutes of the September 11, 2018 Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting (6-0). 2A Proposed Bike Share Sites (Scott Wadle) Scott Wadle, Parking Mobility Division - has been assisting with the Bike Share Station Phase 2 roll out. As part of the new stations that are coming out, there are four proposed to be located on park property, outside of the right of way. The ones you have seen to date have been installed in public right of way and permitted through the Engineering Division. These four will be located in parks, split evenly with two located on City of Wichita park property and two on Park Board property. What is proposed is to provide authorization for these bike share stations is a month­ to-month lease with a 30-day termination clause, at $1 rent and "as is" condition. The site at Central Riverside would accommodate 10 bicycles, located in the spot on the presentation indicated in lighter gray. The site was selected based on convenience, for awareness so people would see them and for being out of the way of the pedestrian travel way. The orange arrow on the display indicates the location near the entrance near the parking lot and the fountains are on the far right. The second location is near the Great Plains Nature Center. There is a large parking lot as you enter into the site. It is proposed to be up against that island. It will be out of the way of people traveling to the Center yet in a prominent location. Also note it is located further to the south and closer to the new bike path that was installed. Bicycle use is not allowed in the park so the idea is to keep it far to the south and not attract people to go into the park. The third one would be at OJ Watson Park in the parking lot next to the restrooms. It would be located in the first and second stall, depending on size, right up against the front. We looked at a spot located closer to the concession stand, but that is where pedestrians queue up to get golf clubs and purchase food and other concessions. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 4 of 18  The fourth one is along the new bike path area adjacent to River Vista. This location would replace an existing bicycle rack that was recently installed. This site was challenging because there are few paved locations suitable for a bike share station that would accommodate 10 bikes and be outside the travel way of people on bicycles or walking. The leases would be for ongoing 1 month with automatic renewals and the 30-day termination clause. The recommended action by the Park Board is that you approve placement of the bike share stations at the proposed sites on Park Board property. And endorse the proposed bike share station locations on City owned park property. Palmer inquired of Houtman if this is what they have been doing pricewise, the $1? Also, does it have to go right at River Vista? Isn't there someplace close but not necessarily right there? Tabing inquired about Exploration Place. Palmer inquired of the developer, Mr. Burk his thoughts. David Burk, 151 N Rock Island, responded they met on site and walked aound selected that site. Ownership approves. Palmer stated if you like it, we like it. Diana Greenwood, 520 W 35th Street South, currently residing at 212 Greenwood. They put some bikes in at Hyde Park, they need to get them out of the road. She would like to see softer, wider seats on at least one at each station. Wadle thanked her for the feedback and stated he would pass it along to the private company that provides the bicycles. Motion by Ramsey, second by Ta bing, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to accept and approve staff's recommended actions. (6-0). 2B Riverside Development Project (John Philbrick) John Philbrick, Real Estate Department. We have been approached about a potential trade of property. The area is north of Sim Park adjacent to the old Salvation Army hospital site. The property is owned by the City of Wichita, it was deeded to the City 1929 by the Salvation Army for river bank stabilization. Because of its proximity to Sim Park and the bike path, we want you to opine on the proposal. What is proposed is an exchange of like sized parcels. On the handout the yellow parcel is City property and would be exchanged to the developer. The green parcel would come to the City. There will also be $1S,000 cash consideration included from developer. That would be up to City Council to determine where that goes, but if Park Board makes a recommendation that would be included in the agenda report. Presenting this to get questions and concerns before it moves on. Tabing inquired if there is a rendering of what the development project will look like? Philbrick responded not at this time. It is proposed to be apartments, but it is in a preliminary stage and they have not finalized development or financing. Tabing stated he has met with the developer on this, it is a very exciting project. This building that would be demolished has been a real blighting influence on the neighborhood for many years. The developer has plans to make some enhancements to the river bank that would open up the bike path in the area. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEITING October 8, 2018 Pages of 18  Hillman stated he is interested in completing the river front bicycle paths along river. You are on the outside curve of river which means that major stabilization will have to continue. You are going to turn that over to Parks which might be an additional expense. Would hope the City would foot the bill rather than Parks to maintain that river front. Looking at the diagram not sure there is really enough room to put in a wide path. Maybe Mr. McGuire should tell us how you are going to maintain it if it is done. Hillman also inquired about the price per square foot that we were suggesting for this? Palmer responded it was a trade and $15,000. Philbrick confirmed that is the proposal, an even trade of square footage and they will throw in $15,000 of additional compensation. Palmer stated we cannot technically sell this land, correct? Houtman responded we would have to go through the same situation where we would have to do a Request for Proposal to sell it. Philbrick added this is not Park land, it was deeded to the City of Wichita. Hillman stated but you suggested it would become Park Board Land. Philbrick responded this is more of an informational presentation. The decision to move forward with the transaction will rest with the City Council. Anything the Park Board adds will be mentioned in the agenda report. Hillman confirmed this would be newly acquired, it could become park land but would be maintained by Parks, which would be additional expense. Palmer stated it is a land for land trade. We are not doing less work or more work. Palmer confirmed this is just asking if would be interested to move forward in this process. Philbrick responded any comments that are provided will be included in the discussion with City Council. Hillman stated that would be fine. Greenwood inquired what area is this, south or north of Douglas. Philbrick responded it is just south of 13th street. Greenwood expressed concerns over the potential loss of nature and trees and provided ideas on potential volunteer opportunities that would help with cost reductions. Ramsey advised Ms. Greenwood this is not a City project it is a private development. The City is not paying anything. Recommendation by Ta bing, second by Hillman, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to recommend approval of the swap. (6-0). 2C Bylaw Changes (Elizabeth Harlenske) Harlenske stated she is looking for approval to move forward with making some bylaw changes for the board. In 2017 changes were made to section 2.12.020 of the City Code. That section governs all City boards, memberships and all of the words governing our various boards, Park Board is included. Changes were made because of a state law change that moved all local elections from April to November. That changes the time of year during which our board members are seated. Instead of being seated in July they are now seated January after the elections. This change ended all board members terms on March 31, 2018 will run until April 1, 2019. They will run that term going forward. We need to address our elections. The bylaws have the elections in September, which makes no sense if you seat your board in January you don't want to wait until September to have elections. They may appoint someone new. Since any new councilmember would be seated in January, they should be able to make any change in board appointment by April. She suggests changing the election date to April. There is also a lot of extraneous things that could be hold over from when the board was an autonomous board. She would like to streamline the bylaws and clean out some of the old stuff that is already in the City BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 6 of 18  Code and just reference that City Code. She will present a delineated document at the next meeting. With approval she will put together a document and send out to the board prior to the next meeting for review and can make the changes at that meeting. Motion by Ramsey, second by Deatherage, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to approve making the suggested bylaw changes. (6-0). 3A MacDonald Golf Course Sale RFP Houtman stated he asked Scot Rigby to make the presentation and go through the Request for Proposal draft. You should have received the draft last week. He did not receive any questions. If you have questions it would be an appropriate time to ask him. Scot Rigby, Assistant City Manager, stated his office typically does RFPs for the City. They were asked to step in and take the lead on this project. There has been some discussion about the potential sale of MacDonald Golf Course. He is going to go through document and you can ask questions as we go through or at the end. The RFP provides pictures of the course. This is for the potential sale of the golf course. At the bottom of the first page you will see a Pre-Submittal Conference; that is for anyone who is interested and would like to come and understand what the project is for the proposals, requirements are part of that meeting. It will probably be on site. The submission deadline will be November 23. These dates are just put in as a placeholder. The second page is Table of Contents. The third page lays out the site and provides some detail about it. It also states the proposals should demonstrate how the property would be improved and how they operate. And that the property must be maintained as a publicly accessible 18-hole golf course. The next page is a community profile. It is pretty standard what we send out. Page five is where you get into key aspects of the request. It talks about number of rounds taken place over the last few years. It talks about the requirement of the proposal submission agreeing to honor the First Tee lease, the maintenance responsibility for the driving range. A lot of these things would be put on to a planning page on the City's website. If someone went to that website and wanted to learn more about the proposal they could also pull up the initial information that is tied to the project. That page would also have copies of the 2017 and 2018 financial reports. People looking at it can see the operations revenues and expenditures. They can also pull up the lease with First Tee. It is clear that the cell tower agreement will remain with City. The City will provide water service to the property and that it is currently zoned TF-3 (two family residential zoning). It is clear the Golf Division will not make any improvements to the course when the RFP is put on the street. That will be the end of any ongoing improvements to the course. It is also made clear the pro shop equipment and merchandise will not convey with the sale. Maintenance equipment and golf carts will not convey with the property. A key thing would be, down the road, the proposal says they would be interested, could they lease the golf course for a period of time because won't have new golf carts for a year. We may be able to work something out. But as for transferring with the property, right now we are saying the golf course equipment that is there will retain with the City to be distributed to the other golf courses. It is clear the property must remain an 18 hole BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEmNG October 8, 2018 Page 7 of 18 public golf course. If the buyer should cease operations as a golf course the City will have first right of refusal to purchase the property back at the price paid by the buyer. Knowing some of the neighboring properties they like the enjoyment of being able to see the green space through the open fencing. The next page is a course scorecard. Page seven walks through the pre-proposal conference. It will be at the golf course. We encourage, but is not required, people who are interested to come out to that where we talk about what we are expecting and walk the site. It is their single time to have conversation with our office as well as Parks with questions about sprinkler systems, those types of things. Beyond that time unless there is a future addendum or additional date, that would be the first and only time applicants will have access to Park staff to talk about the project. If they have questions they can submit those to the City and an addendum will be provide that will be shared with everyone signed into the project. Some key things in Proposal Review and Evaluation, it is made very clear each proposal must submit a 10% earnest money deposit to be considered valid. That allows us to see if they are true and they are ready to perform. Hillman inquired if that is standard operating procedure for the City of Wichita or the Park Department to require 10%? Rigby responded it varies. Most recently when they did the RFP for the sale of the State Office building they required 10%. If the proposal is not selected that check would be returned to the applicant. The next is the proposal shall commit to honoring the First Tee lease agreement. On the following page it is made clear, they sign their name, purchase price, the 10% and then initialing that they understand they are agreeing to the First Tee, keeping it an 18 hole golf course and providing an operation plan for the first five years. They agree they have to continue to operate it as an 18 hole public golf course and submit an operation plan and projected capital investment for the first five years. Hillman inquired if they buy it and maintain it as a golf course, why do we need a five year capital investment plan? Rigby responded the feedback we received it is not just how much are you willing to pay for the property, what are you going to do with it, what level of investment. We've talked about maybe requiring them to provide an annual report, providing an update on what took place over the past year. Hillman added but they are not required to post anything or meet those capital investment requirements once they purchase. Rigby responded this is a gesture of goodwill commitment. If it is year two or three, are they keeping the property up and making those capital investments they promised. If they don't but are still keeping the property up to speed, that is a question for Council. We may approach and inquire where is the investment or why no. At the end of the day, you are selling the property. There is only so far you can say what are you doing. Palmer inquired if this happens and the RFP goes out and there is a buyer, where do those funds go. Rigby responded he does not know if that final decision has been made. He encourages Park Board to provide feedback to the City. Ramsey asked who makes that decision. Rigby responded he doesn't know the legal answer to that. Harlenske stated she looked at the motion from the last meeting and it was not the intent to have the City take this over. This is Park Board property. The RFP needs to reflect it is the Park Board soliciting proposals not the City. You would be the ones that make the decision. It is your property, you should get the money if you sell it. Palmer inquired who on the GAC, was anyone on this committee to help put this together. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 8 of 18 Rigby responded the Parks committee and Park staff was involved. Palmer confirmed it was just Park staff and no one from the Park Board or the Golf Advisory Committee. Houtman responded you are getting your chance now. Hillman stated it is your territory you ought to be in on it. Houtman added that is why we provided the draft ahead of time for you guys to provide input and questions and concerns. Palmer responded those are certainly concerns that he has, that they were not part of this. It was his understanding that it was Park Board property, not sure how they got left out of the conversation. Don't know how we get in now, guess it is just making corrections to this. Rigby stated we provided a document for you to respond to. If you have suggestions, edits, we are happy to look at those and have discussion. We can change it from City of Wichita to Park Board. Palmer stated that has to happen for sure. Rigby continued stating once the submittals are received a final selection committee will be created to review the proposals. That recommendation will go on to the Park Board for final consideration. Palmer inquired the selection committee has not been made yet? So again, we should have somebody, it should be this board. Harlenske stated it should be the Park Board that considers the proposals. This is unusual, it doesn't happen very often, it is a new area. You own the property so it is different than an RFP for the entire city. You will need to get with Purchasing and look at the purchasing ordinances as they apply to you. It is different because you are the owners of this property. Rigby stated often what happens is the groups have their own property to sell. Out of their board or committee they select a number of them to serve as a selection committee, going through and shortlisting saying who they want to interview and who they want to accept. Then they make a recommendation to the full committee. It is up to each group how they want to do it. Hillman inquired don't we have a Golf Advisory Board. Ramsey responded it is a Golf Advisory Committee. Ta bing stated we had spoken previously about a master plan for golf in general. A strategic plan for getting more holes. Ramsey stated we did not speak about that, the Golf Advisory Committee spoke about that. Tabing added that was in the context of this property as well. Is that going to be discussed later in the agenda? What is the status of that master plan? Ramsey responded he understands the Golf Advisory Committee will be discussing that at their upcoming retreat. Palmer stated at this point we need to look at this. If we are sending this out as the Park Board we have to make decisions if this is what we want to do and if what is in this is what we want to be in it. The Park Board should fill most of those seats that you talked about. Harlenske stated this has not happened before. We need to look into who sits on this. It should be the entire Park Board. This is different than other City RFPs. This is your property, you are the owners and should be the ones to make the call. Hillman inquired if we are going to go through and change it. Ramsey stated he realizes we are selling the property and there are only so many restrictions that can be put in place. We say it has to remain a public golf course but nothing is said about banning any private development, for instance, someone coming in, purchasing the property and taking the road front along 13th Street and turning that into strip malls. We don't specifically deny that kind of development. It can still remain a golf course and they can still do that, but that is problematic. Palmer stated he said they would maintain the greenspace with a free and clear view of the greenspace. Rigby stated the RFP, currently as drafted reads they must maintain an BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 9 of 18  18 hole public golf course. How they use the extra space would go through the normal development process if they so choose to. If they want to add some addition to the club house to do a wedding reception area, they would go through the normal development process, but they would have to maintain the 18 hole golf course. Palmer inquired we could put the restrictions in there that they can't develop 13th Street. Rigby responded you can put anything in, but the cautionary note is the more restrictions the less response you are going to get or the less value you may get back. Ramsey stated his comment on that is "so what." If we are going to sell this we are going to do it the right way, we don't want to do this wrong. He has seen the City get into too many leases where an RFP was done, people made promises they were goint to do and those promises were never fulfilled. There is no meat in them to force them into doing what they promised to do. I don't want to see this happen. This is Park Board space, this is a beautiful golf course and don't want to see that happen. If someone wants to maintain it under the restrictions we put into place and put the care into it that as a city we cannot, great. Not interested in selling it if they want to develop it. Had we been consulted that point would have been made long before making the RFP. Palmer stated they want to have a pre-proposal conference on October 23. It sounds like there are a lot of questions by this board as to what is in that. Harlenske stated she would suggest that there be changes to the wording that the developer agrees to honor the First Tee lease, honor is not a legal term. That lease would have to be formally assigned in a document put on file as any other real estate document. That assignment could have a lot of restrictions in as part of the document. That document should be referenced that the buyer or developer acknowledges that he/she is bound by the First Tee lease and acknowledges the separate assignment and terms therein. If it is this board's decision that we protect the First Tee interests then we need stronger language in there to do so. We do need to realize there will be a separate document that needs to be signed by, if one is selected, the selected developer. Rigby responded that is why we have the last page that has the initials that say they would honor that. When the final sale agreement is done that would be part of it. Harlenske stated if this board wants to make sure First Tee is protected we would need some language in there. Cabral stated he likes the idea of some stronger language. Harlenske added we would need some specific terms of what you want to require them to honor or undertake. Also, you said it both ways, it says the property shall remain 18 hole public golf course. Public golf course implies that it is owned by a governmental unit. On the back page you say publicly accessible, that is the wording she suggests rather than public. If it is sold it won't be owned by a government entity, it will be owned by a private entity. You don't want it to become a country club or membership only. Hillman stated along with that you could indicate that all of the greenspace around the golf course be maintained. You could make that the second point. Palmer asked what the will of this board is. Do you want to meet in a week, put together your thoughts, email Houtman, what do you want to do? Hillman asked when the next Golf Advisory Committee meeting is. Renard responded October 16, next Tuesday. Several board members expressed unavailability on that date. Palmer stated they need to do something, there are too many questions. The Park Board is responsible for this and was not included in the original conversation, which is wrong. Garding will send out a BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 10 of 18 poll for meeting availability. Harlenske inquired if this would be a special meeting of the Park Board. It would have to be a public meeting with citizens who are interested. Palmer stated the Golf Advisory Committee should be invited too. Harlenske added in order to maximize attendance it should probably be two weeks out. Hillman motioned to set aside time as appropriate if it meets the needs of the board in two weeks to talk about this again and solidify our proposal. Palmer - second Goter inquired if the board would entertain public comment before acting on the motion. Palmer responded not sure if there is a need to at this time. There will be an open meeting set up so you can come and talk to us. Goter stated he would appreciate the opportunity to very briefly state his point. Goter stated they have assembled an ad hoc committee of people from the golfing community. They are concerned this is going really fast. It appears you are consumed with the "how" and have not addressed the "why." When the presenter of the RFP says three times "that is a great question" that means they didn't have an answer. This has been done pretty fast without proper input. They have a lot of questions they would like to see addressed. The Golf Advisory Committee suggested to stop, do your master plan before you decide to sell. Figure out what that big picture is. You are taking a very dramatic action to sell a vital public asset and have not done the homework on what is that master plan. What is the context of that sale? You can't just rush forward to sell a property without doing the due diligence. The comment about the history of MacDonald Park financially illustrates that the foundation for this decision has not been established. If you keep going forward trying to fill all the "x's" and "o's" it just seems like you are going really fast. We are just an ad hoc group, but there is a lot of conversation about this in the golf community. You are on track with that right now. You would be better served to let GAC complete that. Palmer responded an RFP is just a proposal. We are putting it out for proposal to see if anyone is interested in it. We have interest in it but the interested party may not be willing to pay the price and then it all goes away. Goter expressed understanding but you have made a decision that you are going to issue an RFP for one of our five golf courses. We have not seen the due diligence about why that course. We don't know if five is the right number or four is the right number. We would like to see the due diligence done to provide the support for that decision. You have not done that yet. You are making a decision to sell a course without explaining why that course and why in the context of the financial picture if the entire golf division that is appropriate. It may be, down the road, but that has not been done yet. Palmer stated disagreement, it is staying a public golf course; just the City is not going to have to foot the bill. It is still going to be a public golf course. That is stated in the RFP. Goter responded to say it is a public golf course leaves it wide open. Does that mean it is public for $100 per round for green fees? Is it public for who they let play? A public course has a mission. One thing we have talked about a lot is that golf courses are a quality of life and an economic development (inaudible). Scot is the BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEmNG October 8, 2018 Page 11 of 18 director of Economic Development, he understands that. There is more than just recreational value. There is the element of quality of life for our community. The Mayor is very much about it, he doesn't like to close a golf course but it speaks poorly about our community when you can't sustain them. It may be that you need to get rid of one. We just haven't seen the homework to establish that. Our recommendation is we would like to sit for a while and not do anything more with this RFP. Give yourself more foundation to make the decision. Ramsey pointed out the fact that you continue to state that we are going to sell the property underlies the fact you are not understanding what we are doing. What we are doing is to see if someone has interest in it that is all. No one may have any interest at all, but we are putting all the restrictions in place to see if someone is interested in all these things, and comes back with an offer, we do not have to accept it. We are just seeing if there is interest. At no point have we said we are going to sell this property. Goter responded when go you through the process of issuing an issuing an RFP you are making a statement about the likelihood of that happening, entertaining the option of doing that. You are not doing that on any other course, so that says that you are contemplating the sale of the course. You are not committing yourself to accepting an offer at this point, but you put on the table this is a good idea to get rid of the course. Palmer responded we did not put it on the table, someone else came to offer to buy it. To follow the City rules we have to put it out for an RFP. Goter responded he questions the legality of that statement. He does not think you are obligated to do anything. Harlenske added you don't have to, you can just say "no thanks." Palmer added we were told there was an offer made on it so we have to. Harlenske said you can just say "no thanks." Palmer inquired if we can just say yes we will take it. Harlenske responded you would have to do a vote on that. Goter stated back to the "why" instead of the "how." Ramsey responded the "why" is someone has shown an interest because they have seen that Clapp is potentially on the chopping block. The City has decided to keep it open for now until a master plan is done. That person said they do not want to see that happen to MacDonald, they want this to stay open as long as possible, they want it to always be a golf course. That is the "why." Goter responded as admirable as that is for that citizen we have a lot of people that have that same view that would like to be heard as well. That one person should not be allowed to drive the agenda without a process for all of us to have discussion. Ramsey responded we are in that process. Goter stated we forced ourselves into it. No one invited us to this. Palmer stated we just did. Before you came up, our motion was to have an open meeting for the golf committee, this board and citizens like yourself to come and talk about that. That was the motion we were getting ready to vote on. Ramsey added we want to hear your input. Goter stated there are a lot of questions. Ramsey stated the board has them too. Cabral asked how long would it take to develop a golf master plan. Houtman responded there are lots of things that are in flux. We don't know what is going to happen with Clapp. We don't know what is going to happen with this golf course. All those things are interdependent and projecting what you really want. It is difficult because we can't say what assets we have, what assets we don't have and what it's going to be in the future. Cabral responded assuming we have five golf courses. Houtman added we could make two or three different plans that are contingencies based on what BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEfTING October 8, 2018 Page 12 of 18 decision is made. We can come up with those scenarios. It is another task that we need to do, it takes a while. Staff has to be involved, working with the golf committee. We've worked with them on other changes we wanted to make. An example was the pricing structure. That process has taken at least six months. Those things can be expedited with more meetings. It is just a matter of how much time you want to put into it. Palmer stated we need to do whatever it takes to get to the right place. Getting together on this RFP, that is not a master plan. A master plan could still be a work in progress as this happens. We could send this out to seventy five people and no one could come back with it. We should move forward with the meeting with the Golf Advisory Committee, open to the public, have these conversations and work towards the RFP. All of it could be contingent on a master plan. Cabral added he wants to make sure we are not sending out an RFP for an asset within the golf system. Wants to make sure we identify is this the best course to sell if we are going to sell anything. Wants to make sure not just moving forward because... Make sure this is the right course moving forward and creating an RFP for. Palmer stated there is a motion and a second on the table. Asked for a vote on motion to set up a public meeting in a week or two to go over the RFP to try to answer some of these questions. It does not answer the master plan question. Houtman made a suggestion to add to that. If people want to set up a secondary meeting, if we can get an opportunity to hear what some of those questions are now we can research and be ready to answer those at the next meeting. Ramsey motioned that we open up for public comment. Cabral - second. Harlenske stated you had a motion on the floor for a meeting within two weeks. Is this a new motion or are you adding to that motion? The first motion needs to be either approved or failed and then take on this. Palmer asked for a vote. Unanimous. Motion by Hillman, second by Palmer, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to set aside time as appropriate if it meets the needs of the board in two weeks to talk about this again and solidify our proposal. (6-0). Motion by Ramsey, second by Palmer, IT WAS UNANIMOUSELY VOTED to open up for public comment on the RFP for MacDonald Golf Course right now. (6-0) Cindy Renard, 1110 Royal Road, we are greatly concerned at the haste of this decision and the basis on what these decisions are being made. We feel our golf system is being dismantled with the stroke of a pen. These are tremendous assets to our city. It is important to do the due diligence on it. We have a five part system, like a wheel with five spokes. It serves all parts of the city. They are affordable and accessible to all. If we do what you want to do we've closed a course and now we are putting one up for sale. Now we have three courses and they are all west of the river. East siders have no municipal course. That results in 18 east side leagues, Wichita Junior Golf, high schoolers and various other east side groups that are displaced. Nowhere in the city to go. The First Tee program is on shaky ground. They have a solid relationship with the City and now they are having an unknown relationship with an unknown buyer. There is a great opportunity with the First Tee driving range going in. We can grow the game and capture more of the golf market. In partnering with First Tee, Mac and the City have the chance to invest in our youth BOARD OF PARK COMMlSSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 13 of 18  and take advantage of the upward trend of beginner golfers. In talking about a new revenue plan with the new season pass that has the potential to broaden our market . and increase revenues. That alone, with the driving range opportunity, would be a good jumpstart for the Golf Division. If we look at that with a reduction in costs charged to the division, things could look much brighter. We are asking for the board to step back from this RFP until a hard look at the Golf Division can take place. The cost, especially the 30% administrative costs, needs to be addressed, alternative business models explored and future needs considered. That is the goal of the GAC along with the Golf Advocacy Group to do in our November retreat. We are asking for you to please wait to take these drastic, irreversible measures before alternatives are defined. Goter asked for clarification. The comment was made that with the RFP that no further improvements could be made to MacDonald. They have already stripped the club house. It seems like there is a self-fulfilling prophecy to make it look bad so it can't function. We would like it to function as a golf course. A decision has already been made apparently that this barebones operation is not sustainable. When you said no decision has been made the evidence is to the contrary. Houtman responded the idea behind that is if the Request for Proposal is out on the street we are not going to add any more capital improvements to the course that will change the value. Why would we put more money into something we are going to be selling? What has happened is staff has been looking at operations and trying to find the best way to make that golf course operate. There are going to be some changes, whether it is sold or not. We have had some major plans for renovations and we are going to hold off on those. We don't know if it is going to be sold or not. If it does not get sold we will definitely be putting those resources back into the golf course. If not we will want to put those resources into the other golf courses. Right now we are in a holding pattern. Ramsey asked about the allegation that the clubhouse has been stripped bare. Hendricks responded they are talking about there is not any merchandise in the golf shop. The golf professional retired in June. Instead of hiring a new golf professional to go into the facility when we are looking at laying people off and furloughs, we decided to wait until later this year or first of next year to make that decision to fill that position. The merchandise that was there has sold out. It is the end of the year. It doesn't make sense to put $20,000 worth of merchandise in a golf shop. Who is going to put it in, is the City going to put it in or is the Assistant Golf Professional working there going to put it in? Does he want to put it in and then turn around and if we sell the golf course end up eating it all? Those are decisions we made. Others on the committee have asked the same questions and those are the same answers given them. It does not make sense to hire a new golf professional and they move their family here and then five months later find out we are selling the golf course and they don't have a job. Houtman added it is not only for that position, but in general how we operate, we are on hold. It has also had an impact on the other golf courses as well. There are a lot of questions we need to answer as quickly as possible. It will help us operate the whole golf system correctly. Candia Smith, 3427 Elmwood a MacDonald employee, we don't have a golf ball to sell when somebody comes in. Can we get something from another course? Talk to the assistant there to see if willing to at least buy some balls. It is an embarrassment. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 14 of 18 It does affect people's play. There is not enough time to tell you how many ways the sale of the historic MacDonald Golf Course is just so wrong. An RFP should not even be considered, it doesn't matter if somebody wants to possibly by it. Why would we be selling this course, possibly losing another course on the east side. We have lost all east side golf. The consideration of this sale when the ink is barely dry on the agreement with the First Tee of Wichita who just invested $1 million into that driving range at MacDonald. That is not even respectful to this agreement and what they expected to do for the youth of our city. This range is going to be the only municipal one east of the airport. It will be a revenue boost with an estimated $50,000 for the Golf Division. That is not as important as the impact this organization has on the inner city youth of the community if embraced and supported. Wichita youth golf groups combined for almost 1,000 golfers this summer. There is a 17% increase in youth golfers nationally. Girls playing has doubled leading to a 19% increase in girl's high school golf participation. What if in ten years we could fill the boys and girls teams in every high school in the city. There are more than six million millennial golfers. Don't overlook the 3.5 million senior golfers, expecting to grow that to five million in 10 years. We can't afford to lose one, let alone two, of the inner city courses. Once it's gone, that's it. There needs to be a place for kids to take their game. If we sell it to someone else how are they going to interact with the First Tee? Are they going to let these junior golfers out there during prime times? There are so many things you can't control once you turn that over to them. Think about the nine core values of First Tee. Please use best judgement and just say "no" now. Nancy Knopp stated she feels Cindy and Candia have covered everything. Greenwood stated the land should go back to being a large farm for the people to work on and donate the food back to the citizens who need it. Goter added we have talked about the history of Wichita and public golf. It has been golfer financed exclusively. That is not sustainable. Research shows 90% of communities in the country employ some level of public subsidy to make the public golf system work. We ask you to provide that leadership and express it to Council that it is not a bad thing to take some tax dollars to sustain an enterprise that is so vital to economic development and quality of life. Tom West, 27 Stone Ridg e Circle, President of the First Tee. Expressed thank you to the board for the support shown through this process. Echoes what the Board Secretary (referring to Harlenske) said about fine tuning the language. We are investing $1.5 million into that piece of property. Fundraising, in spite of all the noise going on regarding MacDonald Park, is going pretty well. We anticipate being on schedule by next summer. When the deal was made on the property it was with the understanding we knew who we were dealing with. He is comfortable partnering with City of Wichita, Park Board and the Golf Division. To bring another third party into the equation creates a lot of other dynamics they don't necessarily want. An example is how do we know our kids will have access to that golf course if it is owned by another party. It has to be at least break even if not a for profit enterprise. In two BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGUIAR MEmNG October 8, 2018 Page 15 of 18  to three years our goal is to have 500-1,000 kids at that facility every week throughout the summer. Currently they are programming to over 22,000 Wichita kids through_ the school system, Boys and Girls Club and their own programs. They expect that to increase in next several years. It is going to require their facility to be fully operational and have some reasonable access to a golf course. That is what the • original concept was when brought to the City. As a private citizen that loves the game of golf any reasonable business man is not going to go through and sell a property b�fore doing due diligence. In this case that is letting the Golf Advisory Committee do their planning work so you know what you are dealing with. Feel you are putting the cart before horse. Is he against that course being sold? Not necessarily, but it has to be under the right agreement, reason why and plan. Palmer stated they have good questions. Please come to the special meeting. Palmer, Cabral and Hillman left the meeting at 4:45 pm. Ramsey is taking over the remainder of the meeting. 4 Recreation Update {Reggie Davidson) Davidson provided updates on September activities. Lynette Woodard • Hoops for Literacy event- Sept 6- 1,000+ attend Dr. Seuss books ready by Chief of Police and Superintendent of Schools Played basketball with Harlem Globetrotter Legend players • Fall registration kicked off- doing well with enrollment and class participation. • Angela doing good job of meeting needs of community McAdams • Partnered with Wichita Metro Church of Christ- Sept 15 - 115 attend "Panther in the Park" event. • Golden Age club hosted their annual play- Sept 22 - 93 participants • Partner with Wichita Workforce to provide custodial workers to assist city staff at McAdams. Ralph Wulz Riverside Tennis Center • All Wooden Racquet Throwback Tournament - 32 participants. • Pickleball programming- Intro to Pickleball- 9 participants • First pickleball tournament - 12 players Community Events • 2 nd Annual Open Streets ICT- Sept 23 - Estimated 35,000 attended 5 Golf Update {Troy Hendricks) Hendricks stated they closed the end of the month last Friday. Year-to-date rounds are continuing to decline. Down 6% from last year and revenue is down 5%. Expenditures are down 15%. Some of that is due to staff doing a good job of controlling expenses. It also reflects open positions that have not yet filled through attrition and waiting on internal things that are happening. The golf system has continued to not make debt service payments, fleet payments, admin fees and fuel charges for the last nine months. Those charges, if they had been paid would be BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 16 of 18  $329,782. Net Income for year to date is $583,000. If you deduct that off there would be a net income of about $253,000. Anticipating having to make some of those payments throughout the rest of the year. 6 Golf Advisory Committee Update (Eddie Fahnestock) Houtman stated at the last meeting they wanted to dive deeper into a master plan. We have been gathering data and information to help them create that. We will support them in creating their master plan. 7 Wichita Parks Foundation Update (Troy Houtman) Houtman stated everything is going well. 8 Pawnee Prairie Park Update (Larry Hoetmer) Hoetmer stated they are focused on finishing most of the work by 2019. The highlighted items on the presentation have been completed. The playground is finishing this week. Bridge repairs at three low water crossings have been completed. Bike path installation and signage are the two major components still finishing. The playground is just waiting on good weather days to put in artificial turf. This is the final push for all the improvements in the park. Contractor is on board now: Conspec (previously known as Kansas Paving). Our goal is to have all the work done by the end of year. Weather permitting they should mobilize on site this week. We posted on social media there will be a lot of activity in the park starting this week. 9 OJ Watson Park Committee Update (Troy Houtman) Houtman stated still moving forward with projects. Will be initiating funding for some new projects. 10 Aquatics Master Plan Update (Troy Houtman) Houtman stated they have provided Council with more information and have gone through three or four different ideas. Hopefully in the next month he will be doing a workshop to explain new ideas Council has and we are trying to execute. 11 President's Update (Troy Palmer) Not present. 12 Director's Update (Troy Houtman) Houtman stated he went to Indianapolis last week for NRPA. Hoetmer and he did a presentation on Pracht Wetlands. Spent some time with other Directors from around the country. Received a lot of good feedback on what we are doing. Deatherage asked Houtman about the event at Lawrence Dumont Stadium. Houtman stated the previous weekend event was cancelled due to weather concerns. This upcoming weekend they are selling seats for $35 in the morning. People need to bring their own tools and it is first come first serve. Then will be followed by exhibition baseball game. Following is a program with the Mayor and others speaking. The band the Astronauts will play for hour, followed by fireworks. Activities will start at 3:00p.m. and should be done by 8:30. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:02 p.m. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEfTING October 8, 2018 Page 17 of 18 The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2018. ----...... BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2018 Page 18 of 18